1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except as otherwise determined in paragraph (2) below, since it is the same as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except as otherwise alleged in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s appraisal result is not reliable in light of the fact that the transaction price of the transaction case adopted by the appraiser is excessively high, and that the appraiser intentionally excluded the appraisal case in the 2016 most recent year.

B. The appraisal result of the judgment appraiser should be respected unless the appraisal method is contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da70420, 70437, Feb. 22, 2007). According to the appraisal entrustment with the appraiser E of the court of first instance, appraiser E is located near the real estate in question, and approval for use was made on the same day as the real estate. The size and site area of the section for exclusive use and F apartment M of the real estate in question were conducted around July 2017 as to the transaction under F apartment L, which was conducted in close time to the market price calculation standard of the real estate in this case, and the transaction under F apartment L, which was conducted around February 2017 at the time close to the market price calculation standard of the real estate in this case, the appraisal price of the real estate in this case can be evaluated as the reasonable comparison of the transaction price of the real estate in light of the aforementioned circumstances.

The plaintiff.